Boredom in School from the Perspectives of Students, Teachers, and Parents

(1)

Boredom in School

from the Perspectives of Students, Teachers, and Parents

Dissertation

zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines Doktors der Naturwissenschaften

(Dr. rer. nat.)

Eingereicht an der

Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Sektion der Universität Konstanz

Fachbereich Psychologie

Vorgelegt im April 2013 von Elena Carolin Daschmann

(2)

(3)

Danksagung

Mit der Fertigstellung dieser Arbeit ist es nun an der Zeit, nochmals denjenigen zu danken, die mich begleitet und unterstützt haben. Ich weiß, dass dieser Dank dem Ausmaß der Unterstützung wohl nicht gerecht werden kann, er kommt jedoch von ganzem Herzen.

Zuallererst gilt dies natürlich meinem Doktorvater, Prof. Dr. Thomas Götz: Ich danke ihm ganz herzlich für die interessante Aufgabenstellung, die alles andere als langweilig für mich war, für die wohlwollende Begleitung meines Promotionsvorhabens, dafür, dass er mich stets unterstützt hat und mit seinen wertvollen Ratschlägen maßgeblich zum Gelingen dieser Arbeit beitrug und schließlich dafür, dass er auch in schwierigen Phasen an meine Arbeit glaubte und mir stets Vertrauen entgegen brachte.

Ganz besonders möchte ich mich auch bei Jun.-Prof. Dr. Ulrike E. Nett bedanken, die meine Arbeit von Anfang an begleitet hat, mich bei jeder der Studien tatkräftig unterstützte und zu jeder Zeit für inhaltliche, statistische und persönliche Fragen ein offenes Ohr hatte.

Stellvertretend für die (ehemaligen) Mitarbeiterinnen und Doktorandinnen der Arbeitsgruppe möchte ich weiterhin Dr. Birgit Wimmer und Dr. Antonie Collier für die freundschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und die immerwährende Unterstützung in jeglicher Hinsicht danken.

Für die englischsprachige Begleitung der Artikel bedanke ich mich ganz herzlich bei meinem Coautor Dr. Robert H. Stupnisky.

Ich danke meinem Mann Philipp, der mir stets Mut zugesprochen und mich in meiner Arbeit bestärkt hat. Ihm und unserer Tochter Anastasia bin ich dankbar dafür, dass sie geduldig unzählige Stunden auf mich verzichtet haben und mir so die Arbeit an der Dissertation ermöglichten. Nicht zuletzt gilt mein Dank auch meinen Eltern, die in jeglicher Hinsicht die Grundsteine für meinen Weg gelegt haben.

(4)

Vorveröffentlichungen der Dissertation

Teilergebnisse dieser Dissertation wurden bereits in folgenden Beiträgen vorgestellt:

Publikationen

Daschmann, E. C., Goetz, T. & Stupnisky, R. H. (2011). Testing the predictors of boredom at school:

Development and Validation of the Precursors to Boredom Scales. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 421-440.

Daschmann, E. C., Goetz, T. & Stupnisky, R. H. (submitted). Exploring the Antecedents of Boredom:

Do teachers know why their students are bored?

Daschmann, E. C., Goetz, T. & Stupnisky, R. H. (submitted). How accurately can parents judge their children’s boredom in school?

Konferenzbeiträge

Daschmann, E. C., Nett, U. E., Wimmer, B. M. & Goetz, T. (2009, September). Antezedenzien schulischer Langeweile aus Schüler- und Lehrersicht: Eine vergleichende Interviewstudie. Vortrag auf der 73. Tagung der Arbeitsgemeinschaft empirisch pädagogische Forschung (AEPF), Bochum.

Daschmann, E., Stupnisky, R., & Goetz, T. (2010, May). Students’ and Teachers’ Perspectives on the Antecedents of Boredom: An Interview Study. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.

Kügow, E. C., Nett, U. E., Cronjäger, H. & Goetz, T. (2008, August). Antezedenzien schulischer Langeweile: Entwicklung und Validierung der Konstanzer Skalen. Vortrag auf der 71. Tagung der Arbeitsgemeinschaft empirisch pädagogische Forschung (AEPF), Kiel, IPN.

Kügow, E. C., Nett, U. E., Goetz, T. & Stupnisky, R. (2009, April). Exploring the Causes of Boredom at School: Development and Validation of the Konstanz Antecedents to Boredom Scales. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association 2009, San Diego, CA.

(5)

Summary

Boredom is one of the most frequently experienced negative emotions among students.

Bored students cannot reach their cognitive and metacognitive potential, especially during classroom instruction. In this way, boredom reflects a dissipation of human resources that modern, achievement oriented societies cannot afford, particularly in regards of an increasing competition due to globalization. For the students who experience boredom in class it is a mostly negative experience, which should therefore be avoided as effectively as possible.

Aside students themselves, teachers are the ones who can most directly impact students’

experience of boredom by designing classroom environments that either promote or reduce the occurrence of this emotion. Parents also might be able to support children to develop efficient strategies to cope with boredom. However, the prevention of boredom and the promotion of positive coping behaviors can only be expediently promoted by teachers and parents if they correctly perceive and judge students’ experience of boredom. The goals of the present dissertation were therefore to assess how precisely teachers (Study I) and parents (Study II) judge boredom in students, and further to develop an instrument, namely the Precursors to Boredom Scales for students (Study III), which can be used by teachers to identify the most prevalent antecedents of boredom in their class.

When exploring how accurately teachers and parents perceive students’ boredom, it is necessary to define the frame of reference to which the perceptions are compared. To get a baseline for antecedents of boredom, the first step of Study I consisted of an open-ended questionnaire administered to 111 ninth-grade students (49% female) that was used to explore their self-reported causes of boredom. For assessing the teachers’ diagnostic competence in this area, their perception of students’ antecedents of boredom was examined through semi- structured interviews with 117 ninth-grade teachers (51% female), which paralleled the student questionnaire. To further investigate teachers’ agreement with students’ responses, a quantitative questionnaire was amended to the teacher interviews. The results showed that both students and teachers identified theoretically assumed antecedents of boredom.

Furthermore, a high congruency between both groups of participants was revealed, teachers identified most of the antecedents of boredom named by students.

(9)

To assess parents’ knowledge about their children’s boredom in school, in Study II a questionnaire was administered to 437 Grade nine students (54% female) and their parents measuring variables related to the frequency, intensity, and antecedents of their children’s boredom experience, as well as how they cope with it. Correlations and mean difference effect sizes revealed that parents generally have realistic perceptions of their children’s boredom.

Parents had the most precise judgments for the frequency and intensity of boredom. The antecedents of boredom and specific coping actions were also well estimated by parents;

however, the least concordance was found between parents’ and children’s perceptions of general boredom coping strategies.

Building up on these results, scales for the assessment of antecedents of boredom were developed in Study III. Based on the answers of 1380 Grade five to 10 students (50% female), multilevel confirmatory factor analysis (ML-CFA) found support for the structural validity of the Precursors to Boredom Scales. In a second ML-CFA, the newly developed boredom scales showed good convergent validity with several key aspects of instructional quality. Finally, differences in the precursors of boredom due to gender were investigated and results supported previous research on gender differences in academic self concept and interest. The proposed scales may be applied for practical use in schools in order to reduce boredom and enhance the quality of instruction.

Owing to the multi-perspective approach, the present dissertation fosters knowledge about boredom in students, particularly about its antecedents and students’ coping behaviors.

Overall, the conclusion that can be drawn from the presented studies is that parents and teachers have a rather good diagnostic competence regarding students’ boredom. Further implications for research and practice are discussed.

(10)

Zusammenfassung

Langeweile ist unter Schülerinnen und Schülern eine der häufigsten negativen Emotionen. Vor allem im Unterricht können gelangweilte Schülerinnen und Schüler ihr kognitives und metakognitives Potenzial nicht ausschöpfen, wodurch Langeweile eine Verschwendung von „Humanressourcen“ darstellt, die sich moderne und leistungsorientierte Gesellschaften gerade im Hinblick auf einen sich immer weiter verstärkenden Globalisierungswettbewerb nicht leisten können. Für die betroffenen Schülerinnen und Schüler ist Langeweile im Unterricht meistens ein sehr negatives Erleben und sollte aus diesem Grund so weit wie möglich minimiert werden. Neben den Schülerinnen und Schülern selbst, sind es vor allem die Lehrkräfte, die durch die Gestaltung von mehr oder minder Langeweile fördernden oder vermeidenden Lernumgebungen den direktesten Einfluss auf das Aufkommen von Langeweile bei Schülerinnen und Schülern haben. Außerdem haben Lehrkräfte, aber auch Eltern, die Möglichkeit Kinder dabei zu unterstützen, effektive Bewältigungsstrategien für den Umgang mit Langeweile zu entwickeln. Die Prävention und die positive Bewältigung von Langeweile können jedoch nur dann zielführend vorangetrieben werden, wenn Lehrkräfte und Eltern das Langeweileerleben ihrer Schülerinnen und Schüler, bzw. ihrer Kinder korrekt wahrnehmen und beurteilen. Das Ziel der vorliegenden Dissertation war deshalb zu erforschen, wie präzise Lehrkräfte (Studie I) und Eltern (Studie II) Langeweile bei Schülerinnen und Schülern beurteilen, und darüber hinaus wurde ein Instrumentarium entwickelt (Studie III), das von Lehrkräften genutzt werden kann, um die in ihrem Unterricht vorherrschenden Ursachen für Langeweile zu identifizieren.

Wenn untersucht wird, wie exakt Lehrkräfte und Eltern Langeweile von Schülerinnen und Schülern wahrnehmen, ist es zunächst nötig, ein Bezugssystem zu definieren, anhand dessen die Wahrnehmungen verglichen werden. Um einen Ausgangswert für dieses Bezugssystem zu erhalten, bestand der erste Schritt von Studie I darin, dass 111 Neuntklässler (49% weiblich) einen offenen Fragebogen ausfüllten, der ihre Selbstwahrnehmung von Langeweile feststellte. Um anschließend die diagnostische Kompetenz der Lehrkräfte auf diesem Gebiet zu erheben, wurde ihre Wahrnehmung der Langeweileursachen ihrer Schülerinnen und Schüler mit Hilfe von halbstrukturierten Interviews erfasst. Die Interviews enthielten zu den Schülerfragebögen parallele Fragen und wurden an 117 Lehrkräften (51%

(11)

weiblich) durchgeführt, die jeweils in einer 9. Klasse unterrichteten. Außerdem war ein quantitativer Fragebogenteil an die Interviews geknüpft, der die Zustimmung der Lehrkräfte zu den Schülerantworten ermittelte. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass sowohl Schülerinnen und Schüler als auch Lehrkräfte die theoretisch vermuteten Ursachen von Langeweile zutreffend identifizieren konnten. Dabei konnte eine hohe Übereinstimmung zwischen den beiden Teilnehmergruppen festgestellt werden, was die Schlussfolgerung zulässt, dass die Lehrkräfte die von Schülerinnen und Schülern genannten Ursachen von Langeweile überwiegend richtig erkennen.

Vor diesem Hintergrund wurde in Studie II die elterliche Vorstellung über die Langweile ihrer Kinder erforscht. Dazu beantworteten 437 Neuntklässler (54% weiblich) und ihre Eltern einen Fragebogen über die Intensität, die Häufigkeit, sowie die Ursachen von schulischer Langweile, und wie Schülerinnen und Schüler mit dieser Emotion umgehen.

Korrelationen und Mittelwertunterschiede zeigen, dass Eltern ebenfalls grundsätzlich eine eher realistische Einschätzung der Langeweile ihrer Kinder haben. Besonders exakt war die elterliche Wahrnehmung bezüglich der Intensität und Häufigkeit des Langeweileerlebens ihrer Kinder. Auch die Ursachen und spezifische Bewältigungsstrategien wurden eher gut eingeschätzt. Die schwächste Übereinstimmung wurde zwischen der Eltern- und Schülerwahrnehmung von allgemeinen Strategien für den Umgang mit Langeweile festgestellt.

Aufbauend auf den Ergebnissen der ersten beiden Studien wurden in Studie III Skalen zu Erfassung von Langeweileursachen entwickelt. Mit Hilfe der Antworten von 1380 Schülerinnen und Schülern (50% weiblich) aus der 5. bis 10. Jahrgangsstufe wurde eine konfirmatorische Faktorenanalyse (CFA) durchgeführt, die die strukturelle Validität der Langeweileskalen bestätigte. In einer zweiten CFA zeigten die neu entwickelten Langeweileskalen gute konvergente Validität mit mehreren wichtigen Kriterien der Unterrichtsqualität. Ausgewertet wurden außerdem noch Geschlechterunterschiede in der

(12)

Wissen über Langweile bei Schülerinnen und Schülern, insbesondere im Bereich der Langeweileursachen und Bewältigungsstrategien, weiter ausgebaut werden. Insgesamt lassen die Ergebnisse die Schlussfolgerung zu, dass Lehrkräfte und Eltern eine eher gute diagnostische Kompetenz bezüglich des Langeweileerlebens von Schülerinnen und Schülern haben. Weitere Folgerungen für die Forschung und Vorschläge für die praktische Umsetzung werden abschließend diskutiert.

(13)

1 General Introduction

1.1 Overview

Students often feel bored at school. According to Larson and Richards (1991), students experience boredom 32% of the time they spend in class. Goetz, Frenzel and Pekrun (2007) found that students are bored during almost half of each lesson on average. It is therefore not surprising that among children and adolescents boredom is often associated with school (Fallis

& Opotow, 2003; Larson & Richards, 1991; Mora, 2011). This high prevalence of boredom is grave because students experiencing boredom in class are at risk of several negative consequences such as negative affect (Harris, 2000), shallow information processing (Goetz &

Hall, in press), low attentiveness (Farmer & Sundberg, 1986), less effort (Belton &

Priyadharshini, 2007; Pekrun, Goetz, Daniels, Stupnisky, & Perry, 2010), and consequentially low grades (Robinson, 1975; Wasson, 1981). This often leads to even more severe effects such as absenteeism (Hamilton, Haier, & Buchsbaum, 1984), drop out (Dube & Orpinas, 2009;

Fallis & Opotow, 2003), drug abuse (Johnston & O'Malley, 1986; Orcutt, 1984; Samuels &

Samuels, 1974), depression (Giambra & Traynor, 1978), and delinquency (Harris, 2000;

Vodanovich & Kass, 1990).

Bored students cannot reach their cognitive and metacognitive potential, and thus boredom reflects a dissipation of human resources that modern, achievement oriented societies cannot afford, particularly in regards of an increasing competition due to globalization. Having these negative consequences in mind, an effort should be made to reduce boredom in order to increase the odds that students will reach their full potential. Even though boredom is a common and prevalent emotion, it has so far received little attention in research (Pekrun et al., 2010; Vodanovich, 2003). Despite its importance for students’ learning, achievement, and well-being, boredom is still a largely neglected construct in educational research (Pekrun et

(14)

and educators to develop and implement boredom reducing intervention programs in schools prior to its onset.

Another important aspect that has not received much attention in research so far is the perception of boredom from different perspectives, such as of teachers or parents. Of particular importance with respect to antecedents of boredom is the diagnostic competence of teachers; in other words, the teachers’ ability to identify when and why their students are bored. Only when the occurrence and antecedents of boredom are accurately diagnosed can teachers adapt their instruction to meet the needs of their students and reduce their boredom.

Knowledge of how accurately teachers can judge their students’ boredom could also strengthen the theoretical and practical training of teachers (e.g., by outlining what antecedents are underestimated), thus leading to an improved quality of instruction in schools and a reduced number of negative boredom consequences outlined above.

When investigating how correctly teachers typically judge the antecedents of students’

boredom it is important to know which of their judgments can be labelled as accurate. Several theoretical assertions regarding the antecedents of boredom have been posited (Fisher, 1993;

Larson & Richards, 1991; Pekrun et al., 2010; Robinson, 1975), which have received empirical support (Mitchell, 1993; Pekrun et al., 2010; Titz, 2001). A highly valid source of students’ boredom and its antecedents are students’ own perceptions (Clausen, 2002; De Jong

& Westerhof, 2001; Kunter & Baumert, 2006; Lüdtke, Trautwein, Kunter, & Baumert, 2006).

Students know when they are bored and they can be assumed to outline reasons for being bored in a highly valid manner. A gap in the existing literature exists, however, assessing the precision of teacher’s perception of the causes of boredom.

Aside from teachers, parents can also support students to reduce the antecedents leading to boredom (e.g., by fostering their children’s interest in certain subjects) and develop positive coping behaviors (e.g., by showing their children how they can reactivate attention).

During the past decades parental involvement has become increasingly important for both schools and families (Cheung & Pomerantz, 2012; Jeynes, 2012; LaRocque, Kleiman, &

Darling, 2011; Rogers, Theule, Ryan, Adams, & Keating, 2009). Parents can contribute valuable information to help create a more supporting and enriching learning environment for students because parent knowledge can transfer into teacher knowledge through, for instance, parent-teacher talks focusing on boredom. Furthermore, parents’ knowledge about how often

(15)

and how intense boredom occurs can help detect a need for action in this area. Their diagnosis of the antecedents that might lead to this emotion will help researchers gain a broader view on what factors are related to this emotion. When parents can judge their children’s behavior of coping with boredom, they may also be able to support their own children in fostering positive coping behaviors. However, parents’ perspectives of their children’s boredom have so far not been subject to any investigation on boredom.

When exploring boredom, the question arises of how this construct is defined. So far, boredom has been described in many different ways by researchers of different disciplines (e.g. Fenichel, 1951; Nietzsche, 1887). The present educational psychology dissertation refers to definitions of boredom as an achievement emotion, which are typically experienced in achievement settings such as during classroom instruction or while doing homework (Pekrun, 2006).

1.2 The Present Dissertation – Objectives and Outline

The general aim of the present dissertation was to explore students’ academic boredom from multiple perspectives. For this purpose, three separate and independent empirical studies are presented in the following chapters (Chapter 2, 3, and 4) that each address specific aspects under the general research objective with different methodological approaches. All three studies can be read and understood independently from one another. The antecedents that lead to boredom were in focus in all of the three studies, while Studies I and II focused on the perception of this emotion and its antecedents from different perspectives, and Study II also investigated the frequency and intensity of boredom as well as how students cope with it.

Study III served to develop and validate scales for the assessment of precursors of boredom.

More precisely, the goal of Study I (Chapter 2) was to investigate teachers’ diagnostic competence in regards to students’ boredom. Students themselves are a reliable source of information concerning their own emotional experience and the antecedents of those

(16)

ended questions on antecedents of boredom. To further compare the teachers’ judgment to the antecedents named by students, a quantitative questionnaire was integrated into the interviews that gauged teachers’ accordance to the students’ categories.

Study II (Chapter 3) sought to explore what parents know about their children’s boredom in mathematics class. The frequency, intensity, and antecedents of students’ boredom experience, as well as how they cope with it, were assessed from the perspectives of students and their parents. First, parents’ and students’ perceptions of the frequency and intensity of boredom was investigated to find out if there is a need to act, in terms of preventing students from being bored. The second step consisted in assessing the antecedents of boredom, which serves as a diagnostic means to investigate what leads to this emotion. And the third aspect, namely students’ coping strategies, was investigated in order to know what strategies are used by students, and how educators and parents could go about and help students develop more effective ways to handle and reduce this emotion. In addition to how precisely parents judge their children’s boredom and the related aspects (frequency, intensity, antecedents, and coping strategies), of particular interest in Study II was if certain issues were generally rather overestimated or underestimated by parents. This knowledge is important to find out if parents and teachers can rely on parents’ judgment of their children’s boredom and act accordingly in order to reduce this emotion.

In Study III (Chapter 4), the Precursors to Boredom Scales were developed and tested.

Due to the limited theoretical background and empirical evidence, Study III examined several research hypotheses that related to the objective of empirically investigating antecedents of students’ boredom in classrooms by developing scales to assess its theorized precursors. There is empirical evidence showing that students are bored during a substantial amount of class time (Goetz, Frenzel, & Pekrun, 2007; Larson & Richards, 1991; Nett, Goetz, & Hall, 2011);

thus, the first objective of Study III was to replicate these findings and to determine the frequency and intensity of students’ experiences of boredom. A second goal was to test for structural validity of the newly developed scales that assess the antecedents of students’

boredom in math class. The theoretically assumed structure of eight distinct precursors of boredom should empirically be supported through multilevel-confirmatory factor analysis, which would signify the structural validity of the scales (Byrne, 2001).

For further validation of the Precursors to Boredom Scales, they were tested for gender

(17)

differences among the boredom antecedents. Despite a lack of research in this area, empirical evidence on gender differences in students’ self concepts served as basis for our hypotheses:

girls have been found to have lower interest (Frenzel, Pekrun, & Goetz, 2007a) and lower self concepts (Goetz, Frenzel, Hall, & Pekrun, 2008) in mathematics than boys. These differences may influence students’ way of interpreting their antecedents of boredom. Furthermore, the relationship between students’ grades in mathematics and their perception of causes of boredom was investigated to test the ecological validity of the Precursors of Boredom Scales.

The final goal of Study III was to investigate the relations between the measured antecedents of boredom and several specific aspects of classroom instruction. Following earlier evidence of connections between the occurrence of boredom and characteristics of classroom instruction (Goetz, 2004), the hypothesis was tested that the Precursors to Boredom Scales would show convergent validity with these aspects of instruction.

It should be noted that the Precursors to Boredom Scales were designed for the domain of mathematics, but they can easily be adapted to academic subjects other than mathematics.

This is due to the fact that recent studies have found academic emotions to be largely domain- specific in nature (Collier, 2011; Goetz, Frenzel, Pekrun, Hall, & Luedtke, 2007; Goetz, Pekrun, Hall, & Haag, 2006; Haag & Goetz, 2012). Therefore, Studies II and III focused on the academic domain and more specifically mathematic classrooms, as boredom is believed to occur regularly during the teaching of this subject. Study I, however, investigated students’

perspectives without restricting the answers to a single subject domain. Only teachers instructing a class in either German or mathematics were interviewed.

The results of the empirical studies are summarized in the final chapter (Chapter 5), which also discusses some general conclusions that can be drawn from this dissertation as well as implications for educational practice and future research.

(18)

2 Exploring the Antecedents of Boredom:

Do teachers know why their students are bored?

2.1 Summary

The goal of the present study was to explore if teachers can accurately identify the antecedents of their students’ boredom. First, an open-ended questionnaire was administered to 111 ninth-grade students to explore their self-reported causes of boredom. Next, semi- structured interviews with 117 ninth-grade teachers, which paralleled the student questionnaire, were used to examine the factors that teachers think make their students bored.

Also, quantitative questions gauged teachers’ agreement with students’ responses. Our results showed that both groups of participants identified theoretically assumed antecedents of boredom. Furthermore, a high congruency was revealed as teachers identified most of the antecedents of boredom named by students. One notable incongruity, however, was that teachers did not mention themselves as antecedents of boredom unless they were explicitly asked about it.

(19)

“When I know something that others don’t know, and the teacher explains it ten times, then I get bored.” (statement by student S4)

“When you don’t understand the content and you therefore don’t want to participate.” (statement by student S5)

“There are two groups of students who get bored in class: On the one side there are students who have already understood the content material of the class […] and on the other hand there are students who say from the outset ‘I cannot do it […]’ ” (statement by teacher T157)

2.2 Introduction

2.2.1 The Definition of Boredom

In recent psychological research, boredom has often been defined as an “affective state composed of unpleasant feelings, lack of stimulation, and low physiological arousal” (Pekrun et al., 2010, p. 532). As boredom is not a prototypical or basic emotional experience (e.g.

Ekman, 1984; Shaver, Schwartz, Kirson, & O'Connor, 1987), it has alternatively been classified as an affect or mood. However, from the perspective of component-process definitions of emotions (Kleinginna & Kleinginna, 1981; Scherer, 1984), boredom can be identified as an emotion characterized by the following components (cf. Pekrun, 2000):

affective (aversive feelings), cognitive (perception of time passing slowly), motivational (urge to change the situation or activity), physiological (low arousal), and expressive (postural or facial expressions).

It is important to note that boredom is not merely the opposite of interest (Goetz &

Hall, in press; Pekrun et al., 2010); in fact, boredom constitutes more than the absence of interest. Lack of interest is affectively neutral and does not cause emotional pain, whereas boredom is emotionally distressing. Due to different affective loads, lack of interest and

(20)

classroom activities or while completing homework, can be classified as an academic emotion.

The present study investigates academic boredom and its antecedents in school settings as perceived by students and teachers.

2.2.2 Antecedents of Boredom

2.2.2.1 Theoretical Framework

There exist only a few theoretical perspectives on the causal antecedents of boredom (Goetz & Frenzel, 2006). The theories share some specific antecedents but also each contains unique aspects, suggesting that a complex array of factors inside and outside of classrooms evoke this emotion. Figure 2.1 outlines the existing theoretical assumptions for the antecedents of academic boredom and integrates the perception by students and teachers.

One prominent theory on academic emotions, Pekrun’s (2010) control-value theory, provides a valuable theoretical framework that can be applied to predict boredom in students.

Pekrun describes how students’ emotions have both individual (subjective) and environmental determinants. The subjective antecedents consist of situational control and value appraisals.

Boredom arises in students, for example, if they perceive either very high or not enough control over the situation (Pekrun, Frenzel, Goetz, & Perry, 2007) and/or if they perceive a situation as low value, meaningless, or irrelevant for their needs (Pekrun et al., 2010).

Environmental influences on students’ emotions, such as instructional quality, can also affect students’ control and value beliefs, and thus impact the development of boredom and other emotions in a more indirect way (Goetz, Frenzel, Stoeger, & Hall, 2010).

The antecedents of boredom proposed by Pekrun (2006) align with Fisher’s (1993) classification of the antecedents of boredom; however, her research was applied only to professional or working situations and not to learning or scholastic settings. Fisher discriminated between antecedents of boredom that lie outside the person (e.g., task and environmental conditions), antecedents that originate inside the person (e.g., their personality), and antecedents that derive from the fit between person and environment. For example, an inadequate fit of the environment to the person, such as tasks that are too difficult or too easy to complete for students when having their level of competence in mind, can lead to being over or under challenged (Acee et al., 2010; Goetz & Frenzel, 2010), which in turn evokes boredom.

(21)

Figure

Hill and Perkins

Figure 2.1: Theoretical assumptions on the antecedents of academic boredom and the perception by students and teachers and th

Hill and Perkins (1985

Theoretical assumptions on the antecedents of academic boredom and the perception by students and teachers and th

1985) provide a general theory on boredom in which situational Theoretical assumptions on the antecedents of academic boredom and the perception by students and teachers and th

provide a general theory on boredom in which situational Theoretical assumptions on the antecedents of academic boredom and the perception by students and teachers and the research questions of the present study.

provide a general theory on boredom in which situational Theoretical assumptions on the antecedents of academic boredom and the perception by

e research questions of the present study.

(22)

proneness), as well as the task (e.g., if the task contains of several activities a person can choose from).

Robinson (1975) provides a theory on boredom in school in which monotonously instructed classes are identified to be the most common proximate cause of boredom. He also claims that a subject domain that is perceived as useless can lead to boredom. Additionally, characteristics of other persons can also provoke boredom (Leary, Rogers, Canfield, & Coe, 1986; Robinson, 1975); in particular, the teacher as a person, as well as their voice or way of talking, may evoke boredom in students to some extent.

In conclusion, the few existing theories on the antecedents of boredom provide several different assumptions, but also show some analogies to one another. The antecedent monotony, for example, is mentioned in several theories (e.g. Fisher, 1993; Hill & Perkins, 1985; Robinson, 1975), whereas control antecedents are only mentioned explicitly in Pekrun’s (2010) theory.

2.2.2.2 Empirical Results

Currently there are only scattered empirical studies on what causes boredom.

Furthermore, these studies tested different assumed antecedents of boredom resulting in findings that are not based on one theory, but rather exist as separate pieces of evidence.

There is empirical evidence, for example, supporting the theoretically assumed antecedent of boredom lack of meaning or valuing of school material, as described by Pekrun (2010) and Robinson (1975). Several studies found perceived uselessness of learning material to be an important antecedent to boredom (cf. Fiske & Maddi, 1961; Morton-Williams &

Finch, 1968; Robinson, 1975). Mitchell (1993) found that meaningful learning material can prevent students from being bored. Goetz (2004) and Titz (2001) furthermore found significant negative correlations between boredom and indicators of intrinsic value, namely interest in mathematics and intrinsic motivation.

As assumed by Fisher (1993), evidence for the incongruence between a person’s capability and the environment leading to boredom was found. To be more precise, a lack of adjustment of learning material to the students’ achievement level was found to be a predictor of boredom among students. For example, Lohrmann (2008) observed that boredom was likely to occur in situations where students were either over challenged or under challenged. Titz

(23)

(2001) similarly detected both low and high competence cognitions (as indicators of high and low competence) to be associated with boredom in academic situations.

Robinson (1975), as well as Hill and Perkins (1985), provide further empirical results for their assumption of monotony to cause boredom. As for instructional aspects as causes of boredom, Lohrmann (2008) found that students typically cite characteristics of instruction when asked for the antecedents of their boredom. These results are in accordance with findings by Goetz (2004) revealing high negative correlations between boredom and the following aspects of instructional quality: clarity and structuring, elicitation of motivation, commitment, disruption during instruction, and pace of instruction.

In sum, there are scattered empirical results that are not connected in a global theory of the antecedents to boredom. Therefore, an exploration of possible antecedents to boredom should precede further selective analyses. To this end, the present exploratory study investigates antecedents of boredom in students before analyzing teachers’ diagnostic competences in this area.

2.2.3 Students’ and Teachers’ Perspectives on Antecedents of Boredom

The viewpoints of students and teachers are possible perspectives for the investigation of antecedents of students’ boredom. Students can judge antecedents of boredom because they know the types of situations in which they are bored. Compared to the perspectives of teachers or external observers, the students’ own perceptions of their subjective experience of boredom and its antecedents show the highest validity (Clausen, 2002; De Jong & Westerhof, 2001;

Kunter & Baumert, 2006; Lüdtke et al., 2006).

Aside from students, teachers may be the most reliable source of information concerning boredom in students during class instruction. They are in ideal positions to observe the occurrence of boredom and make conclusions about its antecedents based on the large amount of time spent in class. The detection of boredom is important because, by using their didactical and methodical knowledge, teachers are the only ones capable of adjusting their

(24)

2.3 Research Questions

Based on the lack of research on teachers’ judgment of students’ boredom, the goal of the present study was to address the following questions:

(1) What antecedents of boredom in class do students report and how strongly do they reflect theoretical assumptions on antecedents of boredom?

(2) To what degree are teachers’ perceptions of the antecedents of their students’ boredom in accordance with students’ perceptions?

2.4 Method

We first sought to explore the antecedents of boredom as they are perceived by students. To do so, an open-ended questionnaire was developed and administered to 111 ninth- grade students. In the second step, we wanted to examine the degree to which teachers’

perspectives of the antecedents of their students’ boredom were in accordance with the students’ perceptions. Therefore, semi-structured interviews containing parallel questions to the student questionnaire were conducted with 117 ninth-grade teachers. We furthermore sought to determine how much teachers agreed with the antecedents of boredom named by students; therefore, a questionnaire was also administered to the teachers to judge their agreement with the students’ categories.

2.4.1 Participants and Procedure

The data was collected within the 3-track system of German secondary schools. The student sample consisted of 111 German pupils (49% female) with a mean age of 15.4 years (SD = 0.6). Students were recruited from five ninth-grade classes: 42 students (2 classes with 22, 20 students) attended Hauptschule (lowest or general school) and 69 students (3 classes with 22, 24, 23 students) attended Realschule (middle or apprenticeship preparatory school).

Data collection took place in a classroom setting with no teachers present.

The teacher sample consisted of 117 German teachers (51% female; 64 teachers at Hauptschule, 53 teachers at Realschule) with a mean age of 45.0 years (SD = 11.0). All of the teachers instructed a ninth-grade class.

All participants took part on a voluntary basis and were affirmed their data would be treated anonymously. Data collection was conducted by trained testing personnel using

(25)

qualitative paper-pencil questionnaires for the student sample, and semi-structured interview guidelines with a paper-pencil questionnaire for the teacher sample.

2.4.2 Exploratory approach: Questionnaires (Students) and Interviews (Teachers)

The exploratory student questionnaires consisted of demographic items and questions about the antecedents of academic boredom. Students first were asked to recall a specific class that they perceived as especially boring: “Surely you know what it is like to be bored in class.

Now, imagine one lesson in particular during which you were bored and that is not too long ago.” The following question was asked (S1) “Why were you bored in this lesson? Please describe everything that led to your boredom as precisely as possible.” To additionally explore antecedents of boredom in general school instruction a second question asked: (S2) “If you also imagine other lessons, what other reasons are there that make you feel bored during class?”

The semi-structured teacher interviews were part of a larger study consisting of several interview questions on boredom. Relevant for the present study were demographic inquiries and questions about the antecedents of scholastic boredom. These were presented in parallel wording to the student questionnaire. Teachers were given the following instruction: “Please imagine a situation in which you had the impression that some of your ninth-grade-students were bored in class.” Participants then responded to the question “Why might those students have been bored?”

2.4.2.1 Quantification of data

The quantification of our data was performed separately for the student and teacher sample to capture the differences of the two perspectives; in other words, to gain a discrete system of categories from the teachers’ open-ended responses that was not influenced by the students’ categories. For both samples, we quantified the data according to a procedure as

(26)

accumulation of paraphrases gained by this inductive procedure, (5) a system of categories was formed separately for the students’ and teachers’ data. The next step consisted of (6) deductively testing if these categories generated by the induction process still represented the original material adequately. In several induction-deduction-loops the system of categories was modified and optimized.

The inter-rater reliability was determined by Cohen’s Kappa (Cohen, 1960), which is a well established, standardized procedure defined by the ratio of the amount of disproportional concordances to the maximum of attainable concordances:

κ = −

−

with = the proportion of units in which the judges agreed

and = the proportion of units for which agreement is expected by chance (Cohen, 1960).

A Kappa-value of κ > .60 is considered acceptable (Landis & Koch, 1977). According to a customary procedure (cf. Mayring, 2010), 10% of the questionnaires were selected randomly and analyzed by two persons concurrently. All the Kappa-values of were between κ = .60 and κ = 1.00 and the percentage of concordances between each two persons analyzing the same questionnaires ranged from = .75 to = 1.00, which indicates good inter-rater reliability. Due to the high Kappas, it can be assumed that the system of categories affords a rather unambiguous assignment of the students’ statements to the categories, and that the remaining 90% of questionnaires could be reliably analyzed by one person.

Following the evaluation of the responses, frequency analyses were conducted (cf.

Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2008). Statements were not emphasized by use of quantifiers; in other words, quantified (e.g. very, a little) and non-quantified statements were valued identically.

2.4.3 Quantitative Assessment – Questionnaire (Teachers)

Beyond the open questions on antecedents of boredom, an additional quantitative questionnaire was distributed to further capture the teachers’ concordance with the students’

perspective on antecedents of boredom. Integrating the categories gained from students’

answers to questions S1 and S2, a questionnaire containing items related to the specific aspects of antecedents of boredom as outlined by students was developed. We asked teachers how much they agreed with each of the students’ categories to provoke boredom. Items were

(27)

formulated as statements such as, “When students are bored in class, it is due to [REASON]”

(1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).

2.5 Results

2.5.1 Antecedents of Boredom from Students’ Perspective

The frequency distributions for the categories of students’ answers to questions S1 (boredom in a specific lesson) and S2 (boredom in school instruction in general) did not significantly differ (Z = -.11; p = .92; Wilcoxon nonparametric test for comparison of the distribution of two variables with connected samples). We therefore combined the answers of questions S1 and S2 into a single score by counting each category only once for each student even if the same student mentioned one category in both answers.

Table 2.1 shows the categories for students’ answers to questions on antecedents of boredom with frequency percentages and exemplary quotations. By far the most frequently mentioned antecedents for boredom were characteristics of instruction (e.g., too little diversified instructional strategies). The next most frequent antecedents of boredom were the topics and content of the courses (e.g., “dry” topics), antecedents attributed to the students themselves (e.g., personal issues), aspects of the teacher’s personality (e.g., “burnt out”

teachers), and the subject (e.g., uselessness of the subject). Fewer students named institutional causes (e.g., last period of the day) and fellow students (e.g., lethargic classmates) as antecedents for boredom. Even though the categories content/topic and subject seem quite similar, we differentiated whether the students referred to a specific content of the course or the subject in general. For example, students might be interested in the subject German in general, but refer to a specific German class during which they were bored by the content (a unit on Grammar for instance).

(28)

Table 2.1: Students’ categories and exemplary quotations

Exemplary quotations Students’ category % of students who named this category

“When the course always follows the same monotonous scheme, everyday over again.” (S44)

Characteristics

of Instruction 91%

“When it is a topic that is not interesting to

me.” (S94) Content/topic 69%

“Because I was in a bad mood because of a boy…” (S60)

Student’s

Personality 41%

“When the teacher is as boring as taking a sleeping pill.” (S13)

Teacher’s

Personality 36%

“I think German is the most pointless

subject in general.” (S100) Subject 23%

“Actually it’s not boring when we only have one hour of math. But we do it for two hours and that makes me fall asleep.” (S7)

Institutional

Causes 10%

“When others are too loud…” (S6) Fellow Students 5%

(29)

2.5.2 Antecedents of Boredom from Teachers’ Perspective

Table 2.2 shows the categories for teachers’ answers to the question about antecedents of boredom with frequency percentages and exemplary quotations. The antecedents of boredom most frequently mentioned by teachers were over challenging students (e.g., course material being too difficult) and content/topic of the courses (e.g., “dry” topics). These were followed by under challenging students (e.g., too little demands), characteristics of instruction (e.g., too little diversified instructional strategies), and lack of attention (e.g., students being distracted). Less than 20% of teachers named aspects of students’ personality, heterogeneity of the class, the subject (e.g., subject not attractive to age-group), or the size of class. It is especially notable that teachers often mentioned both over and under challenging at the same time: Of the 55% of teachers who named students being over challenged and the 38% of teachers who named students being under challenged as antecedents of boredom, it is notable that 26% of teachers are in both groups and therefore think that boredom might sometimes be due to over challenging and in other situations due to under challenging students.

2.5.3 Teachers’ Accordance with Students’ Categories

The qualitative accordance of the teachers’ categories with the students’ categories is depicted in Figure 2.2. There were four identical categories that students and teachers both mentioned in common; namely, characteristics of instruction, content/topic, student’s personality, and subject. Furthermore, there were some teachers’ categories that provided similar but not identical content to student categories. For example, the teachers’ categories lack of attention and heterogeneity both contain aspects of the students’ category fellow students. Only one student category, teacher’s personality, was not reflected in the teachers’

categories.

(30)

Table 2.2: Teachers’ categories and exemplary quotations

Exemplary quotations Teachers’ category % of teachers who named this category

“They are over challenged, they find it a hard nut they can’t crack, then they let themselves go and don’t participate anymore.” (T67)

Over challenged 55%

“The content which is in the curriculum is just not interesting to

them.” (T99) Content/topic 49%

“And when I repeat something very elaborately, then it does often happen that they withdraw…, that they feel bored, because

principally they have understood the material.” (T47) Under challenged 38%

“When it always follows the same scheme, then boredom begins.”

(T125)

Characteristics of

Instruction 31%

“The class I have, they are nice children. But they have other

things in mind than German or school in general” (T165) Lack of Attention 21%

“It may probably also be due to the biological development.”

(T138)

Student’s

Personality 19%

“Thus, when the class is very heterogeneous, then more boredom arises in class.” (T65)

Heterogeneity of

Class 12%

“They just lack of interest in mathematics. Students nowadays

just don’t show any interest for those basic things.” (T161) Subject Domain 12%

“It was a very big class.“ (T160) Size of Class 3%

(31)

Figure 2.2: Comparison of students’ and teachers’ categories of antecedents of boredom.

(32)

To further investigate how much the teachers agree with the students’ perceptions of boredom antecedents a quantitative questionnaire was amended to the teacher interviews.

Table 2.3 shows each of the student categories as items of the teacher questionnaire with their means and standard deviations of teachers’ responses, as well as the percentage of students who named the category. Indeed, teachers were in accordance with several of the students’

categories of the antecedents of boredom. For example, teachers agreed with students that lack of interest in the content/topic and characteristics of instruction were the most common antecedents of boredom. When asked explicitly about the teacher’s personality as being responsible for students’ boredom, teachers partly agreed even though this was not a category identified by the teachers from their interview responses.

Table 2.3: Descriptive Statistics of the teachers’ quantitative answers

Note. Teachers’ accordance is provided with a response format ranging from 1 to 5.

(33)

2.6 Discussion

The main objective of the present study was to explore if teachers perceive the antecedents of their students’ boredom accurately. Since students can be assumed to be a reliable source of information concerning their own emotional experience and the antecedents of those experiences (Clausen, 2002; De Jong & Westerhof, 2001; Kunter & Baumert, 2006;

Lüdtke et al., 2006), we asked students to report the reasons for their boredom and compared the teachers’ perceptions to the students’ answers.

For the preliminary question of what makes students bored, our results show that students can describe the situations in which this emotion arises in much detail, and that their perception largely reflects the theoretically assumed antecedents. For example, Pekrun’s (2010) control-value theory was reflected in students’ category characteristics of instruction:

Students claimed not having enough control over the lesson or the teacher’s actions, thus leading to boredom. This was the case for students who mentioned the interaction between teachers and students, as well as the fact that students do not feel involved enough in the lesson. Students also named antecedents linked to the theoretical assumption that meaninglessness of stimulation would lead to boredom (e.g. Fiske & Maddi, 1961; Hill &

Perkins, 1985) mediated by value appraisals (Pekrun et al., 2010); specifically, students mentioned the subject in general or some more specific content caused them to be bored and explained it was due to uninteresting, “dry” topics, or useless course content.

The large majority of students attributed their boredom to characteristics of instruction.

The theoretical assumptions and empirical findings of monotony being an antecedent to boredom are reflected within this category (e.g. Fisher, 1993; Fiske & Maddi, 1961; Perkins &

Hill, 1985; Robinson, 1975). For example, students repeatedly noted undiversified instructional strategies, long monologues by the teacher, too many writing tasks, and a lack of quality in the teacher’s lecturing as leading to their boredom.

(34)

(Leary et al., 1986). Other students named teachers’ age and symptoms of burnout (e.g. “He’s been a teacher for quite a long time and I think he’s therefore extremely exhausted”; S99).

In sum, students were able to describe the antecedents of their boredom profoundly and in detail. The categories deriving from their answers reflect the theoretically assumed antecedents. This leads to the conclusion that it is legitimate to use students’ responses as a standard for assessing the teachers’ diagnostic competence of the causes of boredom.

2.6.1 Convergence of Teachers’ with Students’ Perspectives on Antecedents of Boredom

Addressing the principal question of how accurately teachers’ can judge their students’

antecedents of boredom, teachers identified most of the antecedents of boredom named by students, either by naming explicitly the same category (cf. common categories: subject, content/topic, characteristics of instruction, student’s personality) or by mentioning similar aspects but going into more detail. For example, teachers identified lack of attention to provoke boredom in students; specifically, teachers named private causes (e.g., personal issues) and institutional reasons (e.g., hot climate in classroom) for students’ lack of attention.

These antecedents of boredom were also named by students, but they assigned it to their categories student’s personality and institutional causes (cf. Figure 2.2).

Teachers correctly diagnosed most of the students’ categories for antecedents of boredom: Teachers and students both identified the subject and content/topic of a class to be important antecedents of boredom. Students complained about “dry” topics and useless class contents, and teachers explained that some topics just might not be attractive to particular age groups. Both answers reflected that a lack of meaningfulness can lead to boredom (Fiske &

Maddi, 1961; Hill & Perkins, 1985; Robinson, 1975).

Characteristics of instruction was the antecedent of boredom most commonly named by students, which was also identified by teachers in terms of style of instruction. This is in line with Leary’s (1986) findings on interpersonal boredom. In sum, teachers were found to have good diagnostic competence of what makes their students feel bored: Most of the antecedents named by students were also mentioned by teachers with only the exception of the student category teacher’s personality.

(35)

2.6.2 Divergence of Teachers’ from Students’ Perspectives on Antecedents of Boredom

At several points the teachers’ perspectives on the antecedents of boredom differed from the students’ descriptions. Most remarkable is the fact that teachers did not mention themselves as the origins of boredom unless they were explicitly asked about it in the quantitative questionnaire. This qualifies the discrepancy between students’ and teachers’

perspectives, because teachers are aware of their role in producing boredom but do not mention it, which could be due to self-enhancement bias (Atwater & Yammarino, 1997).

Further differences between students’ and teachers’ categories included that teachers differentiated more precisely between some aspects that were stated quite generally by students. For example, teachers focused a great deal on specific aspects of the student- environment fit (Fisher, 1993); more precisely, they frequently named students being over and under challenged as separate antecedents of boredom. Teachers explained how important it is to adapt the level of tasks to the achievement of their students because an adequate level of stimulation and arousal prevents students from being bored.

To conclude, the comparisons of the open questions, as well as teachers’ accordance with students’ categories, revealed a rather high diagnostic competence of teachers concerning antecedents of their students’ boredom. Although the sets of categories of both groups of participants are not identical, the content of their answers, namely the antecedents of boredom identified by students and teachers, converged at most points. This leads to the conclusion that teachers seem to know most of the antecedents of students’ boredom in class, they are even capable of explaining some of them in much more detail than the students themselves. It is therefore all the more surprising that teachers cannot avoid the occurrence of this emotion more efficiently. It seems as if it is difficult for teachers to avoid boredom, even though they are aware of the antecedents.

(36)

intensive, and require a significant time and cognitive commitment from the participants. A quantitative instrument that reliably captures these perceptions could replace interviews and open-ended questions, thus increasing research efficiency on these issues. Moreover, quantitative measurements would allow potentially greater comparability and generalizability of findings across studies, groups, and contexts (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997; Crocker & Algina, 1986).

Furthermore, our study utilized questions on the general experience of boredom during school instruction. As a consequence, the results reflect a disposition of perceiving boredom and habitual tendencies of attributing it to antecedents. Retrospective reports as they were conducted in the present study may not fully capture the diverse situational factors that lead to boredom. According to recent experience sampling studies (Hektner, Schmidt, &

Csikszentmihalyi, 2007; Nett et al., 2011), emotions depend considerably on the situation in which they are experienced. Therefore, boredom and its antecedents should also be assessed in state questionnaires, such as by using experience sampling method or diary studies. These designs would also allow for regression models predicting boredom through antecedents investigated at previous measuring points.

Finally, the student and teacher sample were not connected to each other, which limited the external validity of responses between students and teachers. A future study design could consist of a sample of teachers who are the actual instructors of the participating students. Furthermore, including another perspective, for example the student’s parents, would lead to an even deeper understanding of the antecedents of boredom.

On basis of the present study and its results, in a following study a quantitative measurement was developed in order to assess the antecedents of boredom in students more efficiently, namely the Antecedents to Boredom Scales (Goetz & Daschmann, 2012). Further development of parallel instruments both for students and teachers would lead to more concrete insight on in-class mechanisms evoking boredom in students, which has implications for teachers and researchers. For instance, assessing the frequency and intensity of boredom simultaneously with measures of specific antecedents of boredom would allow more precise insight on interactional and instructional aspects (Pekrun, Goetz, Titz, & Perry, 2002).

Moreover, the mere assessment of perceived antecedents of boredom is important for optimizing classroom instruction. It would be useful for teachers, for instance, who perceive a

(37)

lot of boredom among their students to be aware of the reasons boredom occurs in order to go about reducing it.

Furthermore, the results of our study show how accurately antecedents of students’

boredom can be identified by teachers. Using their knowledge, teachers and researchers could develop prevention and intervention programs with respect to reducing boredom at school.

One could create such a program with various solutions according to the different antecedents of boredom reflected in our results. Achievement boredom among students could be reduced since we found both teachers and students are aware of the antecedents. Teachers should use their knowledge about the most prevalent antecedents, such as characteristics of instruction, and avoid boredom by instructing more adapted to students’ needs and competences in order to avoid over or under challenging students. Teacher education should be improved in terms of practising more individualisation and adaption methods. This would not only prevent students from being bored, but also enhance instructional quality overall. As our results show, teachers do have a high diagnostic competence regarding the antecedents of their students’

boredom. This should encourage them to follow their instinct and act accordingly in order to prevent their students from becoming bored.

(38)

3 How accurately can parents judge their children's boredom in school?

3.1 Summary

The purpose of the present study was to explore what parents know about their children’s boredom in school; specifically, the frequency, intensity, and antecedents of their children’s boredom experience, as well as how they cope with boredom. A questionnaire was administered to 437 grade 9 students and their parents measuring 23 variables related to boredom in mathematics class. The mean correlation between students’ and parents’

perspectives across all 23 variables was ̅ = .34, which indicates that parents perceive facets of their own children’s boredom merely by tendency accurately in relation to other children of the sample. When comparing the different aspects of boredom, parents had the most precise judgments for the frequency and intensity of boredom. The antecedents of boredom (e.g., characteristics of instruction) and specific coping actions (e.g., listening to music) were also well estimated by parents; however, the least concordance was found between parent’s and children’s perception of general boredom coping strategies (e.g., accepting boredom). The mean difference effect size of = .16 shows that, over all items, the degree of overestimation vs. underestimation was rather symmetrically distributed, so parents’ answers did not show a one-sided tendency to either over- or underestimate students’ responses. Implications of the current findings for research on boredom among students as well as for practical application to involve parents in boredom prevention are discussed.

Boredom in School from the Perspectives of Students, Teachers, and Parents